Thin Shoulders - thinner arms - still thinner wrists

 Any RWC coach who, at this late stage do not have a very good idea of the  make-up of  his squad, is in deep sh!t. I  would be surprised if there are many RWC coaches who do not have at least 90% of their squads in the back of their heads.


It is only nincompoop armchair coaches who are still claiming that there are many unexpected players who could still get themselves into the RWC squad.

 Which is why we all know Lancaster has no intention of selecting Armitage and Abendanon for the England Squad, don't we, Ceradyne ?!  

Anyone have a link to the show?

 

The only unfamiliar players to Meyer are the likes off Koch, Kriel, Kitshoff and anyone else that hasn't played a test. I don't see Lappies going to the World Cup even though he deserves to as he didn't even make any of the training camps. 

 Shezza
I think you are wrong - Lappies name was definitely on the list of players who attended the camp.    

 Mozart
This obviously followed from your attack on Du Toit whose knee got injured because he according to you had thin shoulders and thin wrists.   It bis amazing how thin the arms and wrists of Matfield are - that is why I wonder whether he in fact weighs the 105 kgs he is weighing.   He obviously is not strong enough to play any substantial role in Tight 5 play.
Shame - you like to dish it out - but cannot take a real response to your BS remarks.  

 Mike we can only live in hope but given that ou matfiled the imposter is still hanging on anything is possible as far as poor selections are concerned. They dont come worse than 38 year old wee stringbean matfiled 105 kg - at tops!

 Mike and Shezza, we have enough experienced loosies to get allong without Lappies. He's still young enough and will get his chance.

 Mike we can only live in hope but given that ou matfiled the imposter is still hanging on anything is possible as far as poor selections are concerned. They dont come worse than 38 year old wee stringbean matfiled 105 kg - at tops!
Dont expect cerudunce windpomp to appreciate all this as he is a bulle fan and matfiled is all he dreasm about re a "lock"! 

Duplicate

 Duplicate

 Duplicate

Duplicate

 Ceradunce 
You stupid BSter.   If a player consistently under-perform in Super 15 - and there are some existing Springboks who do - then it should be borne in mind.  The real message I posted deals with the stupidity to completely disregard performance and that is where Matfield's comment would be counter-productive.
Take for instance a player like Willem Alberts.  Was injured in June last year - came back from injury and played one match where he carried a few balls, made one good tackle and a number of very average tackles,  but let the opposition scrummie go past him with very little space between the scrum and the touch-line - leading to a Bulls try.  Was then injured again and has not played since that game.  Is he one of the certainties for selection and if he is on what is his selection based?
There is one thing that one can expect from Meyer - and that is there will be a substantial number of his favourites in the squad irrespective of what they produce in Super 15 or any other competition.   So what can we expect from the Springbok squad?  P ersonally I think very little - because most of his favourites are way past their sell-by dates.           

But Matfield's thin wrists and knobbly knees dont break every few games like Stephanie's ....spot the difference chump! 

 Let me state a fact.  Matfield does not endanger himself by getting stuck into the game.  He mainly moonlights in the backline and makes some weakish tackles without the danger of getting injured in the process.    He is in fact never involved in plays where injury may become a threat and that means he does not get involved in the game as a tight 5 player should.   When tackled he goes straight down - never trying to use bodily strength to force his way forward - a sure way to avoid any potential injuries.
The amount of work done by Matfield in Tight 5 play is minimal and even in line-outs where a maul is formed he gets pushed out easily or goes to ground early - later joined the maul from the back without using any strength.
Because of the above - chances of him getting injured is remote.  The less you actually do in the game, the less is the injury threat - the more you contribute the greater the threat.    And Matfield actual contribution to plays where injuries may become a threat is minus zero.  

Nonsense of course and it still doesn't explain why Stephanie can't take contact without breaking something. I predicted this kid was going to get hurt when I first saw him. You scoffed but as usual in our arguments I was one hundred per cent right. Must be painful for you.  

 BS - this site is not about Du Toit - it is about the painfullly poor Matfield - who will make us go out of the WC early because of his non-existent performances as a Tight 5 player.
And Du Toit's knee injury problems result from him having thin shoulders and thin wrists.  

You are a hopeless case - hoping for good players to get injured.  Are you not embarrassed by the way you have tried to write Du Toit out of any further rugby this year?

Do I have to literally cut and paste my response on strength? Michael, I have covered this issue ad nausea. 

 Yes I remember - you said in 2008 Matfield did well in lifting weights.  This is 7 years later and he lost weight and looks at best frail for a rugby player.  REMEMBER THE 7 YEARS LATER.  

Do you not recount that size DOES NOT EQUAL strength? You are proving nothing by continually harping on about size.

 Idiots, (a few of you)

When Matfield started again his weight was 105kg, but that increased to about 110kg. Judging from his photos, his bodyfat percentage is below 10%. Most locks have a bodyfat percentage of about 15%...

So he can get to 115,5kg easily without adding a single gram of muscle and by just eating more... to be similar to other locks... So his muscle mass is exactly the same as an average lock of 115,5kg.

Crap is, when you add that extra 5% of fat, which has no function at all, except to weigh you down, you lose 5% of fitness too. You accelerate and run slower.

The advantage of the extra 5.5kg of fat is that it merely makes you a bit heavier when you lean on someone, while you get your breath back, because of your reduced fitness levels...

The_Truth, you couldn't be more right. Look at the EOYT, Victor's mobility and strength were clearly on display. Eben was largely missing in that England test, but Victor was tireless everywhere. One of the biggest reasons why we won that test, but Michael went crazy when he saw that vid.

 And who ran out of steam in the match today.  There was not a single sign of Matfield in the second half of the game.  
This story about him coming back weighing 105 kgs and that his weight has increased since to 110 kgs is talking utter unproven crap.  An egocentric chap like matfield would moan continuously if his weight in fact increased and that increase is not shown in the case of the TV starting info.  There is every sign that he is a beanpole with not much muscles to brag about.  Incidentally he said in his book that his playing weight at his hay-day was 106 to 108 kgs and the story that he is now weighing 110 kgs is utter unadulterated crap.
Secondly the fat story is about as scientific as the rest of the crap spouted by the Trooth Fairy in this case.  
"Look at the EOYT, Victor's mobility and strength were clearly on display."   Was it on display when Matfield was just pushed out of the way when the forwards were involved and while he was moonlighting in the backline and making weak tackles?  That is all he produced during the EOYT.   

All the fairy tales produced by you two does not take away from the real fact that Matfield is way past his sell by date, is physically deficient and that he will be a real embarrassment in the upcoming tournaments.   


 

According to you Michael, and that isn't saying very much. On the EOYT he was one of our two most consistently good forwards. Not amongst the backs as you like to believe. The fairy-tales are coming from you. And best you not embarrass yourself with more predictions, I though the EOYT left you drowning in egg. Maybe you'd be a happier chap if we all chipped in and got you a diving board for your next dip; break the monotony of it all , eh?

"Secondly the fat story is about as scientific as the rest of the crap spouted by the Trooth Fairy in this case.  "

Hahaha!!! Thanks for that reply. Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of sport science now know exactly how stupid you are. One of the entries for the "fail of the year" competition!

 The poor Matfield groupies - one has to admire their persistence - and laugh at the crap they write on this site.   

 Truth, I read on numerous occasions Matfield himself stating his ideal weight of 106 to 108 kg's and that was in his prime, so I find it very hard to believe that he is anything near 110kg as he surely looks leaner than ever and its highly unlikely that he managed to bulk up that much in muscle now, when he could not even do it in his prime.

 Why I said that the Trooth Fairy is talking tripe is that everybody - whether a sportsman or not - require medically a level of bodily fat to survive.  The fact is that is why there is a medical scale for the weight determination of players with a standard bone structure.  
On a sound basis the medical weight scale used for top sportsmen allows for players like Francois Steyn to weigh 103 to 105 kgs - and for players like Matfield to weigh in the vicinity of 116 to 120.  That is why in the case of -
*   Francois Steyn he flopped badly in 2013 and 2014 because his weight was in the vicinity of 118 kgs and in fact for a player his height (6'4") he was grossly overweight/fat; and 
*   Victor Matfield he at 6'8"  is in fact at least 8-13 kgs below a reasonable weight for him and effectively a beanpole carrying some bodily fat already.
Take for instance Sam Whitelock - he is about a similar height as Matfield - but is 11 kgs heavier than Matfield at 105 kgs.   From a muscular perspective Whitelock is physically much stronger than Matfield is - and so are all the other locks at present playing in top  countries at present.  A 105 kgs lock is a serious anomaly in international rugby at present.   Matter of fact the weight of most loosies nowadays are generally more than 105 kgs, even though they are substantially smaller from a height perspective than Matfield.  Another example is Andries Bekker - who is slightly taller than Matfield, but weighs 121 kgs.   Nobody would call Andries Bekker fat as is implied by the stupid Fairy 
The Trooth Fairy will explode in indignity and state that props are shorter in height - but generally weigh more.  The reason for that is that props have a broader bone structure than locks and as a result weighs more.
   


            

 LOLS

 "Why I said that the Trooth Fairy is talking tripe is that everybody - whether a sportsman or not - require medically a level of bodily fat to survive.  The fact is that is why there is a medical scale for the weight determination of players with a standard bone structure."

"The Trooth Fairy will explode in indignity and state that props are shorter in height - but generally weigh more.  The reason for that is that props have a broader bone structure than locks and as a result weighs more."

Bwhahaha... Essential fat is about 4% for men and 10% for women...

Bone structure had nothing to do with vascularity or with muscle definition. Props with their hanging belly fat are obviously not close to the same levels of conditioning... And that is obvious.

Just to give you bit of an indication of the requirements Jake White had in 2007:
Props approximately 15%
Locks approximately 13%
Loose-forwards and hooker approximately 10%
Backs Approximately 8.5%

But being involved in fitness and conditioning training of rugby player, cyclists and body builders for the past 30 years, what would I know....

I mean... Just look at Coenie's bone structure.... bwahahaha!!!

Still prattling on about weight... when will that penny drop? 

 Matfield looks lean and fit. In the shape of his life. It looks like he can do well in The Comrades BUT, IMO "string bean" is too generous. He looks a bit thin to go head to head with the best locks in the world as our first choice 5.

 That is an old 2007 or 2008 photo again.  A recent photo of Matfield showed no muscle definition at all and that is a fact.     

 Mike, we are waiting for that recent photo

He is busy with photoshop right now, making that totally not faked recent photo from a "reliable" source.